82 STALK-EYED CRUSTACEA. 



for other species by A. Milne Edwards {Elasmonotus brevimaims and Galaihodes 

 ktifrom). For JIunidojjsis brevimana Hend. may be substituted Mwudopsis 

 ciliata, a name lately given by Wood-Mason to a Munidopsis from the Bay of 

 Beno-al, which docs not appear to be distinct from Henderson's species* 

 Elasmonotus latifrons Hend. may be called Munidopsis latirosiris. 



The genus Munidopsis, taken in this extended sense, contains about seventy 

 species, sixteen of which were discovered during the voyage of the " Alba- 

 tross" in 1891, and were first described in my preliminary report on the 

 Crustacea of the expedition in 1893. 



After the present report was written I received a memoir entitled " Con- 

 siderations Generales sur la Famille des Galatheides,"f written by Prof. Milne 

 Edwards conjointly with Mr. E. L. Bouvier. In this memoir the classification 

 of the Gakdeidce is treated anew and in more detail. All of the genera pro- 

 posed by the senior author in 1880 are retained, although transformed almost 

 beyond recognition by the imposition of new diagnoses and new limitations.. 

 Galaihodes is restricted to the species characterized by a broad, flat, triangular 

 rostrum, often carinated on its upper side, and armed towards its anterior end 

 with a pair of prominent lateral spines or teeth, in front of which the distal 

 extremity of the rostrum suddenly contracts. This new diagnosis of the 

 genus Galaihodes eliminates eight of the ten species upon Avhich the genus 

 was originally based, leaving G. latifrons and G. tridens alone in Galaihodes, 

 the eight others being transferred to Munidopsis. So of the six species of 

 Oroplujrrhjnchus of the original paper three are now transferred to Munidopsis, 

 one to Elasmonotus, one {0. spinosus) is ignored, leaving but one of the origi- 

 nal species, 0. arics, in Orophorrhynchus, of which genus it becomes the type. 



The diiriculty encountered by Prof. Milne Edwards in distributing his 

 own species among his own genera would seem clearly to show the artificial 

 nature of the genera proposed, and amply to vindicate the course of those 

 naturalists who have refused to adopt them. 



It is true, as Milne Edwards and Bouvier maintain, that the most char- 

 acteristic of the species ranged by them in the genera Orophorrhynchus and 

 Elasmonotus differ from the more t^'pical species o^ Munidopsis as much as or 

 more than the species assigned to the genus Galacantha. But there is this 

 difference : the species of Galacantha, although they differ but slightly in 

 structure from Munidopsis, yet form a sharply defined and natural group dis- 



• See p. 84. f Aun. Sci. Nat., Zoo!., 7'^™ Ser., XVI. 191-327, 1894. 



